Subramanyam Narasimhan

The applicant, Lakshmi Narayan Mandir, sought an interlocutory injunction without notice to prevent protests within 100 metres of its temple.

The temple was scheduled to host a consular camp for elderly Indian nationals to obtain Life Certificates, which are essential for their state pensions.

Previous similar events at other temples had been disrupted by violent clashes between pro-Khalistan Sikh nationalists and pro-India counter-protesters, leading to injuries and property damage.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald and American Cyanamid test for interlocutory injunctions, with the elevated standard for cases involving freedom of expression.

It found a serious issue, irreparable harm to pensioners and congregants if the event was disrupted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

The court also determined there was a high probability of harm based on past incidents and threats.

The injunction was granted, establishing a 100-metre perimeter to protect participants and congregants while allowing protesters to express their views from a distance.

The plaintiff landlords brought a summary judgment motion for unpaid rent and an eviction order against the defendant tenants.

The landlords had initially applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) but withdrew the application after the arrears exceeded the LTB's $35,000 monetary limit and the tenants stayed an initial eviction order.

The tenants argued the Superior Court action was barred by section 207(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act, res judicata, and abuse of process.

The court rejected these defences, finding the LTB application was properly withdrawn and no final decision existed.

Summary judgment was granted for $89,773 in arrears, ongoing occupation rent, and a writ of possession.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking the return of his four-year-old daughter from India and an order for interim equal shared custody.

The respondent mother had unilaterally taken the child to India over a year prior and argued that returning during the COVID-19 pandemic posed a risk.

The court found the motion urgent, noting the unilateral removal was akin to abduction, and ordered the mother to return the child by December 31, 2020.

However, the court dismissed the father's request for interim equal custody, finding it incautious given the lengthy separation and the mother's allegations of abuse.